Since italy pays those countries to "guard their coasts", there have been many instances where peoples were forced to board these ships and "charity ships" were notified before hand in a sort of human-traffic type of business that makes profitable to enlarge the issue, there are multiple sides to these stories, It's not that simple unfortunately...not that I agree with what Italy is currently doing rn of course

If I understand correctly, they are just not letting the planes belonging to the charities to fly out of those fields. So it's not the landing that's prohibited, it's they can't base themselves there.

Also, you technically are required to take an extra hour of fuel because airports close all the time. In theory, the airport has the right to tell you to land it in the field sonewhere.

Not that I support the Italian government in this shady shit.

I distinctly remember a news from years ago of a small town mayor from Southern Italy, who was warmly and openly welcoming migrants to prevent depopulation and revive his town, but was arrested for whatever reason. Granted, there could be more to nuance to this, but this also happened during the time when Mateo Salvini's far-right party is in a coalition government (now the Italian government is firmly on the further right with Georgia Meloni as PM in coalition with Salvini). So, the arrest of that small town mayor is probably politically motivated and sending signal to toe the line and with far-right policies.

Idk, these fascist fucks just want the migrants to die in the ocean. That is more likely if they aren’t spotted.

Partially, but it is also that due to wage and PPP differences a single person with a mediocre job in the EU can support an entire extended family back in their home country. Changing that is not so easy, especially when it largely comes down to PPP and lifestyle differences.

IMHO as much as I agree that it would be great for people to not feel a lot of pressure to leave their home countries to look for a better life, maybe the more realistic option is to try and find a way to make this migration more beneficial for both sides (which it already largely is, but we could do better).

This is one of these "maybe true in theory" but counter productive arguments.

Irregular migration has been on the rise for many years and the ratio of success is high enough that people risk it regardless of whether or not there are planes looking for ships in distress.

But there is another reason why the Italian government doesn't want these planes flying: they are unwelcome witnesses to illegal pushback operations that the Italians and Maltese (and Frontex) are doing in cooperation with Libyanese mafia militia.

European migration laws forces these people to conduct this dangerous voyage because you can’t get asylum without crossing the border.

Offshore resettlement programs exist in Europe and around the world. The problem is that there exists little incentive for people to remain in a refugee camp for what could be years when the option of travelling directly to their country of choice is an available option.

A solution is for countries to relocate all asylum seekers back to these refugee camps where they have no option but to wait with everyone else for resettlement. There would be no incentive to risk your life to cross a border if you're just going to end up back in a refugee camp along with other people who are waiting.

Currently, in my country at least, there is an onshore humanitarian program and an offshore humanitarian program. Most of the people granted refugee visas in the offshore program are from war-torn countries like Afghanistan or Syria who escaped to a third country. The top five countries of origin for those that apply for onshore protection are from tourist destinations that haven't seen war in decades. Hosting asylum seekers in UN refugee camps also helps prioritise those most in need.